On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 11:40 +0100, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:35:42AM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > > > You could have upgraded from v1.0 to v1.1 or v1.1 to v1.2 incrementally, > > but v1.2's index changes haven't been backported to v1.0, so if v1.0 > > accesses indexes modified by v1.2 you'll probably get some errors. > > > > I think we'll just jump in with both feet, and upgrade them all to v1.2 > at the same time. If, in worst case, we need to downgrade, do we need to > delete all indexes first, or will the errors resolve themselves ?
They should resolve automatically, but there may be bugs which cause crashes and those might not get resolved automatically. > I just tested accessing the same mailbox over imap first against v1.2 > then against v1.0.15, and didn't see any problems logged. But maybe that > was too light testing to reveal any problems.. If you expunge messages in v1.2 I think v1.0 won't understand those. > > > Does the below look correct ? > > > > > > user_attrs = > > > mailMessageStore=mail=maildir:%$:INDEX=/usr/local/atmail/users/indexes/%1u/%1.1u/%u, > > > mailQuota=quota_rule=*:storage=%$ > > > > > > i.e. will it point dovecot at: > > > > > > mail = > > > maildir:/usr/local/atmail/users/j/a/[email protected]:INDEX=/usr/local/atmail/users/indexes/j/a/[email protected] > > > quota_rule=*:storage=1000000 > > > > Yes. Although if the mail directory can be created by such a template, > > you could do it without having the directory in ldap at all.. > > What would I then have on the left hand side of the expression instead > of ldap attribute ? Hmm, I think I'll stick with the ldap attribute, to > force us to keep the ldap data correct in case we ever want to replace > some parts of dovecot with something that doesn't allow such templating. I meant that you'd remove "mail" entirely from ldap stuff, and use mail_location setting instead.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
